The Kalam Cosmological argument

[ateista]

Wikipedia:

Christian philosopher and apologist William Lane Craig has recently revived the argument and formulates it as follows:

Premise 1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

Premise 2: The universe began to exist.

Conclusion 1: Therefore, the universe must have a cause.

Craig asserts that the first premise is “relatively uncontroversial”. He defines “begins to exist” as “comes into being,” and argues that we know from **metaphysical intuition **that things don’t just pop into being uncaused. According to Craig, this establishes premise 1.

The second premise is usually supported by the following argument:

1. An actual infinite cannot exist.
2. A beginningless series of events is an actual infinite
3. Therefore, the universe cannot have existed infinitely in the past, as that would be a beginningless series of events.

Answer to premise #1:

“Metaphysical intuition” is a nice phrase, but nothing more. Premise #1 is just an unsupported assumption. Moreover, if it were true, it would invalidate the concept of free will. By definition, an act of free will cannot be caused by external causes.

Answer to premise #2:

The definition of the universe is “everything that exists”. Therefore the universe cannot be caused by external causative agent(s), since they would be part of the universe.

Therefore the Kalam argument fails. Q.E.D.

 

[crowonsnow]

Premise 1 always struck me as contrived. I guess the analogy would be something meant for a choir.

Premise 2 is clearly false. The problem with t=0 is a mathematical problem, just as a singularity is a mathematical construction that only exists on paper. It’s like a quantity of negative two. Clearly there cannot be such a quantity but for our mathematics to work we assume that such a quantity is real, when we know it is not.

Therefore the conclusion is both contrived and false. Besides, with Feynman’s and Hawking’s use of imaginary time, we never get to a point of t=0, but only something very close, which renders an explanation for the existence of a singularity at t=0 unnecessary.

Besides, I don’t think even Craig argues that the universe just poofed into existence. There was always something there, some ylem from which the present universe arrived. And there is colliding brane theory also.

So I guess the argument might then be that an ylem universe always existed but still required a mover. My question would be on what evidence is the need for a contemporaneous mover based? Or more to the point, what good is a mover without a universe that needs moved? You’d have to rewrite modern theology to answer that question.

It’s simple observation to see that the universe is everywhere all the time and doesn’t require any kind of absent mover to exist. The argument for a mover rests on the simple observation that the universe exists, so clearly the universe comes first anyway.

More importantly, the disguised argument is:

1. Nothing exists without a cause.
2. The universe exists.
3. Therefore the universe needs a cause.
4. Therefore a cause for the universe must exist and this is a god.

The first statement erroneously assumes non existence for the universe. This requires equating the universe with a state of nothingness. I don’t know what that could possibly be, aside from the fact that it requires a bit of nihilism.

Statement 2 is clearly true

Statement 3 is wrong because it requires statement 1 to be true when in fact “nothingness” is not something real.

Assuming statement 1 is true, statement 4 would violate it as this cause could not exist without having been caused itself, unless it is nothing, which isn’t real, therefore violating the entire argument.

 

[Nullasalus]

Answer to premise #1:

“Metaphysical intuition” is a nice phrase, but nothing more. Premise #1 is just an unsupported assumption. Moreover, if it were true, it would invalidate the concept of free will. By definition, an act of free will cannot be caused by external causes.

The proposition of God does not depend on the validity of free will. And regardless, the link between ‘the universe was caused to exist’ and ‘free will’ is itself, er. Tenuous, to say the least.

But if you want to argue against causality, go for it. Just don’t be surprised that it isn’t persuasive.

Answer to premise #2:

The definition of the universe is “everything that exists”. Therefore the universe cannot be caused by external causative agent(s), since they would be part of the universe.

Therefore the Kalam argument fails. Q.E.D.

So propositions of a multiverse or many-worlds fail because there can be only one universe and one world?

Hinging the success or failure of Kalam on the definition of ‘universe’ you choose to use is a bit much. Reminds me of the ‘Can God make a rock so heavy He Himself can’t lift it?’ argument. There are standard philosophical responses to that, and responses to responses. But in terms of theological practicality, ‘Who cares?’ is a pretty high hill to climb.

 

[SeekingCatholic]

Answer to premise #1:

“Metaphysical intuition” is a nice phrase, but nothing more. Premise #1 is just an unsupported assumption. Moreover, if it were true, it would invalidate the concept of free will. By definition, an act of free will cannot be caused by external causes.

Well, not quite. That everything that begins to exist has a cause is supported by induction - e.g. it is what we observe, at least at the macro-scale. Inductive reasoning is of course not absolute proof, but what is the reason for thinking there may be an exception? And why can’t free will have a cause? You decide to eat because you’re hungry.

Answer to premise #2:

The definition of the universe is “everything that exists”. Therefore the universe cannot be caused by external causative agent(s), since they would be part of the universe.

Therefore the Kalam argument fails. Q.E.D.

I’m sure proponents of the KCA don’t mean to make God part of the universe. So this is a straw man you are arguing against. Surely by “universe” they mean matter and energy.

Why not just argue for an eternal universe, or set of multiverses? They would never have “begun” to exist, so the KCA wouldn’t apply.

 

[ateista]

Well, not quite. That everything that begins to exist has a cause is supported by induction - e.g. it is what we observe, at least at the macro-scale. Inductive reasoning is of course not absolute proof, but what is the reason for thinking there may be an exception? And why can’t free will have a cause? You decide to eat because you’re hungry.

If you have truly “free will”, it cannot be caused. If it is caused, it cannot be “free”. Sure we eat because we are hungry. But if there is a choice of what to eat and it is not determined, then it was a freely elected choice. If it is determined, it was not free. This is a very simple line of reasoning…

The concept that the universe is one, uninterrupted causal chain is in clear contradiction to having freedom of choice.

I’m sure proponents of the KCA don’t mean to make God part of the universe. So this is a straw man you are arguing against. Surely by “universe” they mean matter and energy.

That would be their problem, not mine. If they wish to use a word which contradicts its valid meaning, then they are guilty of epistemological double-speak.

Why not just argue for an eternal universe, or set of multiverses? They would never have “begun” to exist, so the KCA wouldn’t apply.

I am not arguing for anything, I am arguing against the Kalam argument, which is incorrect.

This arguement does not invalidate God, per se. One may argue that the natural part of the universe cannot exist in and by itself, and may propose arguments for this assumption. But it cannot be done by assuming that the universe must have a cause outside itself, because that is logically unsound proposition.

 

[jimmy]

Answer to premise #1:

“Metaphysical intuition” is a nice phrase, but nothing more. Premise #1 is just an unsupported assumption. Moreover, if it were true, it would invalidate the concept of free will. By definition, an act of free will cannot be caused by external causes.

The phrase used is irrelevant. The meaning is basically that we can sense our surroundings and we can draw conclusions from the world around us. You try to say that premise 1 is unsupported but the fact is that it is the whole premise of science. Science is based on the fact that all things have a cause and that consequently there is a logic to them and they can be understood. Your arguement contradicts all physics and chemistry. If your arguement were true then all anthropology would be meaningless since there is no correlation between what is in the ground and what was once walking on the earth. With your logic I could conclude that the dinosaurs never walked the earth, their bones were simply always in the ground.

Answer to premise #2:

The definition of the universe is “everything that exists”. Therefore the universe cannot be caused by external causative agent(s), since they would be part of the universe.

This is your definition. This is not how it was always defined. You are argueing about words, which change. Your understanding is not that of others. If you define universe as everything that exists and the supporters of kalam define it as what is material or energetic that does not mean they are wrong. Words are simply symbols that point to something else. You have made a definition that has seperated yourself from the actual arguement of kalam.

Premise 2 is clearly false. The problem with t=0 is a mathematical problem, just as a singularity is a mathematical construction that only exists on paper. It’s like a quantity of negative two. Clearly there cannot be such a quantity but for our mathematics to work we assume that such a quantity is real, when we know it is not.

The kalam arguement is basically that if the world has no beginning then you can keep adding an increment of time to infinity. The past becomes an infinite regress. It is impossible to cover an infinite amount of time and therefore the world had a beginning. The present would have never come to be if the world did not have a beginning. Time t=0 is irrelevant to the arguement.

Besides, I don’t think even Craig argues that the universe just poofed into existence. There was always something there, some ylem from which the present universe arrived. And there is colliding brane theory also.

Craig argues that God existed and that is all.

Statement 3 is wrong because it requires statement 1 to be true when in fact “nothingness” is not something real.

Assuming statement 1 is true, statement 4 would violate it as this cause could not exist without having been caused itself, unless it is nothing, which isn’t real, therefore violating the entire argument.

The whole premise of the kalam arguement is that time began, not only the universe. And God is existence itself. He has no succession in time therefore speaking of a cause of God is meaningless.

Your arguement regarding 1 and 3 is not really an arguement. Your assumption is that matter absolutely must exist. Your arguement against 3 is a truism. Nothing is nothing. The kalam supporters are claiming that nothing existed. Maybe you can not imagine that(neither can I) but that does not invalidate the point. Maybe you are trying to say that ‘nothing’ meaningless term because even in a vacuum there is something but for you to argue against the point is simply to assume that there was always something. You are not actually engaging the arguement.

 

[jimmy]

If you have truly “free will”, it cannot be caused. If it is caused, it cannot be “free”. Sure we eat because we are hungry. But if there is a choice of what to eat and it is not determined, then it was a freely elected choice. If it is determined, it was not free. This is a very simple line of reasoning…

That is a false arguement. The idea of all things being material says that free will is caused and consequently we have no free will. Your arguement from atheism says that the world causes free will and consequently with your logic there can be no free will.

The universe is the product of a free will. God chose to create the universe. He created man with a free will that man might create and freely love.

The concept that the universe is one, uninterrupted causal chain is in clear contradiction to having freedom of choice.

That is the premise of atheism basically since they claim that the material world is all there is.

That would be their problem, not mine. If they wish to use a word which contradicts its valid meaning, then they are guilty of epistemological double-speak.

Actually it is your problem because you are the one who is taking words and changing their meaning. The modern use of the word universe is no more valid than the use of anyone who used it a thousand years ago.

I am not arguing for anything, I am arguing against the Kalam argument, which is incorrect.

Your whole arguement is false.

This arguement does not invalidate God, per se. One may argue that the natural part of the universe cannot exist in and by itself, and may propose arguments for this assumption. But it cannot be done by assuming that the universe must have a cause outside itself, because that is logically unsound proposition.

It is unsound from your premise because you have redefined the word universe in a sense that it was not always used. It is like argueing with a man from England using Japanese words. It is a meaningless way to argue.

 

[ateista]

The phrase used is irrelevant. The meaning is basically that we can sense our surroundings and we can draw conclusions from the world around us. You try to say that premise 1 is unsupported but the fact is that it is the whole premise of science. Science is based on the fact that all things have a cause and that consequently there is a logic to them and they can be understood. Your arguement contradicts all physics and chemistry. If your arguement were true then all anthropology would be meaningless since there is no correlation between what is in the ground and what was once walking on the earth. With your logic I could conclude that the dinosaurs never walked the earth, their bones were simply always in the ground.

I do not argue against science. Science is well aware of its incompleteness, its possibility of being wrong. Nowhere is the realm of natural science will you see “absolute” statements, which are not subject to change or revision.

Sure we see causal chains, zillions of them. That is a far cry from asserting that the whole universe is one, uniterrupted causal chain, and to assert that everything that has a beginning must have an external cause.

This is your definition. This is not how it was always defined. You are argueing about words, which change. Your understanding is not that of others. If you define universe as everything that exists and the supporters of kalam define it as what is material or energetic that does not mean they are wrong. Words are simply symbols that point to something else. You have made a definition that has seperated yourself from the actual arguement of kalam.

Again not just the words, rather the concept they point to. If someone wishes to reduce the meaning of the word “universe” to everything that is natural, then they are the ones who are sloppy. (Just like when someone talks about “omnipotence”, but as soon as you scratch the surface it turns out to be something that is not “omni”-potence.)

 

[ateista]

That is a false arguement. The idea of all things being material says that free will is caused and consequently we have no free will. Your arguement from atheism says that the world causes free will and consequently with your logic there can be no free will.

Of course there can be. The world does not cause our free will.

The universe is the product of a free will. God chose to create the universe. He created man with a free will that man might create and freely love.

That is merely your assumption.

That is the premise of atheism basically since they claim that the material world is all there is.

We are part of the material world, yet our mind is not material. Just like the computer hardware is part of the material world, but the **activity **of the program executing on it is not material.

Actually it is your problem because you are the one who is taking words and changing their meaning. The modern use of the word universe is no more valid than the use of anyone who used it a thousand years ago.

It is unsound from your premise because you have redefined the word universe in a sense that it was not always used. It is like argueing with a man from England using Japanese words. It is a meaningless way to argue.

As I said, I am not responsible for other people’s sloppiness.

 

[jimmy]

I do not argue against science. Science is well aware of its incompleteness, its possibility of being wrong. Nowhere is the realm of natural science will you see “absolute” statements, which are not subject to change or revision.

Sure we see causal chains, zillions of them. That is a far cry from asserting that the whole universe is one, uniterrupted causal chain, and to assert that everything that has a beginning must have an external cause.

Everything in the universe has a cause. Science has found nothing that is uncaused. For you to assume that things are uncaused in the universe defies logic and observation.

Again not just the words, rather the concept they point to. If someone wishes to reduce the meaning of the word “universe” to everything that is natural, then they are the ones who are sloppy. (Just like when someone talks about “omnipotence”, but as soon as you scratch the surface it turns out to be something that is not “omni”-potence.)

Your definition is not accurate. You have chosen the definition of your choice and excluded how the word is actually defined. You have formed your concept of the universe. As I said the words are symbols that point to something else. You have created a definition which says that God must be included in the universe. Their system is no less accurate than yours. Universe is a word that has a meaning that changes over time. It is narrow mindedness for you to reject the arguement based on this point because this isn’t even an arguement against kalam.

Of course there can be. The world does not cause our free will.

Of course it does. You say a human is purely material and that the brain causes our free will. I think I read this on your other thread.

That is merely your assumption.

Yes, it is the assumption of Christianity. That there is no god and that the world is uncaused is your assumption.

We are part of the material world, yet our mind is not material. Just like the computer hardware is part of the material world, but the **activity **of the program executing on it is not material.

Your explanation of computers is false. All electronics is based on codes and on the flow of electrons. Electrons are material. Your analogy is false.

That is your assumption that the mind is not material because you can’t explain the mind using science or logic. The fact is that everything that man has experienced has shown that it has a cause. Nothing simply happens randomly.

As I said, I am not responsible for other people’s sloppiness.

It is your sloppiness because you are the one who has redefined the term. Your system of speaking is no more valid than the system which is chosen by those who support kalam. You are wrong if you are going to base your arguement on a different understanding of a word.

 

[ateista]

Everything in the universe has a cause. Science has found nothing that is uncaused. For you to assume that things are uncaused in the universe defies logic and observation.

And if that were true there would be no freedom of action. It is true that our freedom cannot be proven, it is just another, albeit very plausible assumption.

You can’t have it both ways, either we actually have freedom of action, and then our actions are uncaused, or we do not, and then the concept of “sin” is vacuous.

Your definition is not accurate. You have chosen the definition of your choice and excluded how the word is actually defined.

Did I now?

Main Entry: uni·verse
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin universum, from neuter of universus entire, whole, from uni- + versus turned toward, from past participle of vertere to turn — more at worth
Date: 14th century
1: the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated : cosmos : as a: a systematic whole held to arise by and persist through the direct intervention of divine power b: the world of human experience c (1): the entire celestial cosmos (2): milky way galaxy (3): an aggregate of stars comparable to the Milky Way galaxy
2: a distinct field or province of thought or reality that forms a closed system or self-inclusive and independent organization
3: population 4
4: a set that contains all elements relevant to a particular discussion or problem
5: a great number or quantity <a large enough universe of stocks…to choose from — G. B. Clairmont>

Your explanation of computers is false. All electronics is based on codes and on the flow of electrons. Electrons are material. Your analogy is false.

And, pray tell, what is the brain, if not just electrons moving around?

That is your assumption that the mind is not material because you can’t explain the mind using science or logic. The fact is that everything that man has experienced has shown that it has a cause. Nothing simply happens randomly.

I said nothing about “randomly”.

 

[jimmy]

And if that were true there would be no freedom of action. It is true that our freedom cannot be proven, it is just another, albeit very plausible assumption.

You can’t have it both ways, either we actually have freedom of action, and then our actions are uncaused, or we do not, and then the concept of “sin” is vacuous.

That is from your perspective as an atheist. If I were an atheist I would be forced to accept that free will is an illusion.

This is encartas definition.

u·ni·verse ynə vùrss ]

noun Definition: 1. **all matter and energy in space: **the totality of all matter and energy that exists in the vastness of space, whether known to human beings or not

1. **the Earth and humanity: **the Earth along with the human race and the totality of human experience

1. **sphere of person or thing: **a sphere of activity that is centered on and includes everything associated with a person, place, or thing

1. logic
   Same as universe of discourse

1. statistics
   Same as population (sense 6)

[14th century. Directly or via French< Latin* universum

“the whole world” <* universus* “whole,” <* versus*, past participle of* vertere* “turn”]

You have falsely dismissed the definition of those who support kalam.

And, pray tell, what is the brain, if not just electrons moving around?

If that was all the human mind was then I would say there was no such thing as free will.

I said nothing about “randomly”.

If it is not random then it has a cause.

 

[SeekingCatholic]

If you have truly “free will”, it cannot be caused. If it is caused, it cannot be “free”.

This is simply defining, tautologically, “free” as “uncaused”. Your error is in equating “caused” with “100% predetermined by prior conditions”.

Sure we eat because we are hungry.

But we could also choose not to eat. So there is a cause without a 100% determination.

But if there is a choice of what to eat and it is not determined, then it was a freely elected choice. If it is determined, it was not free.

Again you’re confusing “determined” with “caused”. There is choice of what to eat, and it too has a cause. Does it taste better? Is it more nutritious? Cheaper? Easier to prepare? Etc., etc.

This is a very simple line of reasoning…

And simplistically in error.

The concept that the universe is one, uninterrupted causal chain is in clear contradiction to having freedom of choice.

No, it isn’t. Are there reasons you choose what you do? And, despite these reasons, are you nevertheless not free to choose otherwise?

But even if you were correct here, all you would succeed in doing is refuting free will, not the KCA as such.

That would be their problem, not mine. If they wish to use a word which contradicts its valid meaning, then they are guilty of epistemological double-speak.

They’re at worst guilty of imprecise language, using the term in the manner in which the common man would understand it.

I am not arguing for anything, I am arguing against the Kalam argument, which is incorrect.

I don’t think it’s sound either, but not for the same reasons you do.

This arguement does not invalidate God, per se. One may argue that the natural part of the universe cannot exist in and by itself, and may propose arguments for this assumption. But it cannot be done by assuming that the universe must have a cause outside itself, because that is logically unsound proposition.

Right. The argument should therefore be that the natural part of the universe must have a cause outside itself. The trouble is that this involves the fallacy of composition - treating the universe as a “thing” rather than a “class of things”.

 

[ateista]

This is simply defining, tautologically, “free” as “uncaused”. Your error is in equating “caused” with “100% predetermined by prior conditions”.

Why is that an error? Caused = 100 % determined by some external cause. For the weaker version we have a very well defined word: “influenced”.

No, it isn’t. Are there reasons you choose what you do? And, despite these reasons, are you nevertheless not free to choose otherwise?

Exactly. Therefore these actions are not determined, only influenced. And if they are not determined, then they start a brand new causative chain, which clearly has a beginning, but not caused.

But even if you were correct here, all you would succeed in doing is refuting free will, not the KCA as such.

Whichever you prefer, is fine by me. All I am saying that they are mutually exclusive.

They’re at worst guilty of imprecise language, using the term in the manner in which the common man would understand it.

But they are not supposed to talk to the “common men”, are they? They are supposed to talk to philosophers, and as such imprecise language would be “frowned upon”.

I don’t think it’s sound either, but not for the same reasons you do.

I would be delighted to hear your reasons, if you feel like elaborating on them.

Right. The argument should therefore be that the natural part of the universe must have a cause outside itself. The trouble is that this involves the fallacy of composition - treating the universe as a “thing” rather than a “class of things”.

Very well said. I certainly agree.

 

[ateista]

That is from your perspective as an atheist. If I were an atheist I would be forced to accept that free will is an illusion.

But I am an atheist, and I accept that there is free will.

You have falsely dismissed the definition of those who support kalam.

I dismiss those which are imprecise.

If that was all the human mind was then I would say there was no such thing as free will.

I said “brain” not “mind”. The brain is a physical organ, with electro-chemical impulses. The mind is the activity of the brain.

If it is not random then it has a cause.

No. Not random is either determined (caused) by external factors, or uncaused.

 

[SeekingCatholic]

Why is that an error? Caused = 100 % determined by some external cause. For the weaker version we have a very well defined word: “influenced”.

In that case there is no such thing as causation, at least in the physical world, due to quantum uncertainty. What “causes” an energy transition of an electron in the hydrogen atom and consequent photon emission, given that such a thing can only be predicted probabilistically? Even at the macro level, the probability of an event given the prior conditions approaches 100%, but isn’t exactly 100%.

Therefore, I mean by “cause” what you mean by “influence”: a necessary, but not necessarily sufficient, prior condition. Your decision to eat was influenced, but not 100% predetermined, by the fact you were hungry; however, you would not have chosen to eat but for the fact you were hungry.

Whichever you prefer, is fine by me. All I am saying that they are mutually exclusive.

In your 100% deterministic universe, with your definition of causation, yes. In my universe with quantum uncertainty, and only influence, not 100% causation and predetermination, no.

But they are not supposed to talk to the “common men”, are they? They are supposed to talk to philosophers, and as such imprecise language would be “frowned upon”.

That depends on where the argument is published. On Wikipedia, I would say language for the “common man” suffices. In a philosophical journal, no.

Very well said. I certainly agree.

Of course, KCA proponents will say otherwise. But this is the major objection they need to address. Sure, it’s not a fallacy of composition to argue that because every brick in a wall is red, the wall is red. It is a fallacy of composition however to argue that because every tile in a flooring is square, the flooring is square. There needs to be sufficient justification for arguing from the parts to the whole.

 

[jimmy]

But I am an atheist, and I accept that there is free will.

I realize that. I just don’t think it is logical.

I dismiss those which are imprecise.

No more imprecise than yours. Yours says the universe is everything in existence, the one I referenced says the universe is all matter and energy. Actually mine is probably more precise since everything could probably simply means energy and matter.

I said “brain” not “mind”. The brain is a physical organ, with electro-chemical impulses. The mind is the activity of the brain.

I purposely used the word mind because the brain is just matter.

No. Not random is either determined (caused) by external factors, or uncaused.

Either way there is no sign that there is anything that is uncaused. To say the mind is uncaused seems to contradict science because all things work by physical laws. If the mind is not controlled by physical laws then it is unreasonable to say that it arises from the brain which is purely physical.

 

[ateista]

In that case there is no such thing as causation, at least in the physical world, due to quantum uncertainty. What “causes” an energy transition of an electron in the hydrogen atom and consequent photon emission, given that such a thing can only be predicted probabilistically? Even at the macro level, the probability of an event given the prior conditions approaches 100%, but isn’t exactly 100%.

I agree that in the sub-atomic world the mechanics of “causation” is quite problematic. In the macro world it is not. If you smack a billiard ball into another one, it will cause a movement according to the laws of physics.

Therefore, I mean by “cause” what you mean by “influence”: a necessary, but not necessarily sufficient, prior condition. Your decision to eat was influenced, but not 100% predetermined, by the fact you were hungry; however, you would not have chosen to eat but for the fact you were hungry.

I have problems with accepting this, even though I try to view it from your standpoint. One is that in this case one of the words “cause” and “influence” is superfluous. Second, at what level of probability does one decide which prior “cause” is the determining factor? There can be several “influences”…

I cannot accept it. There are causes (100% determinant factors) and there are “influences”. The difference is significant.

In your 100% deterministic universe, with your definition of causation, yes. In my universe with quantum uncertainty, and only influence, not 100% causation and predetermination, no.

Again, my worldview is not a 100% deterministic universe. I can accept the randomness of the subatomic particles.

Of course, KCA proponents will say otherwise. But this is the major objection they need to address. Sure, it’s not a fallacy of composition to argue that because every brick in a wall is red, the wall is red. It is a fallacy of composition however to argue that because every tile in a flooring is square, the flooring is square. There needs to be sufficient justification for arguing from the parts to the whole.

I could not have said it better.

I find it interesting that these discussions can easily bog down due to linguistic disagreements. Jimmy defines the word “universe” differently, you define “cause” differently. I wonder, why? I find these objections “contrived” almost “desperate” in a sense. Why do you care if there is no rational explanation for god? You accept it on faith, anyhow. Do you think that it would be more intellectually “satisfying” to have a rational foundation?

 

[aquinothomas]

Why is that an error? Caused = 100 % determined by some external cause.

It seems like there is some equivocation on the term “cause” in this discussion. Within the Kalam, the meaning of “cause” primarily refers to the unbroken chain of events that ultimately explain the existence of beings. In other words, a chain of efficient causes that result in the current state of affairs, from an ontological point of view.

Free will is an essential property of human nature…a human being. The causation referred to in the Kalam is of the existence of the human (and the rest of the universe), not the decisions that the human being makes using their free will. What you’re referring to is determinism, where the will is coerced in every regard due to a set of circumstances, and there’s no correlation between the “causation” of the Kalam (which refers to onlology), and the determinism (the “cause” of each of our decisions) to which you are referring to. I’m not saying that determinism may or may not be true (I happen to think it’s false), but it has nothing to do with the Kalam.

 

[ateista]

I realize that. I just don’t think it is logical.

Why wouldn’t it be logical? Our freedom to choose comes from the fact that we can “imagine” the consequences of our actions; evaluate those consequences and make a selection according to our value system. There is nothing mysterious about it. And all these capabilities stem from the complexity of our brain. The “mind” and “will” are emerging attributes.

It is well-known that “quantitative” changes can cause “qualitative” jumps. It is observed in physics, in societies, everywhere. There is nothing mysterious about the fact that beyond a certain limit the complexity of the brain will “create” a mind, sufficiently developed to make abstractions, imagining consequences, making decisions.

The idea that all these must come from some immaterial “soul” is at best unneccessary.

No more imprecise than yours. Yours says the universe is everything in existence, the one I referenced says the universe is all matter and energy. Actually mine is probably more precise since everything could probably simply means energy and matter.

My objection is that concepts, ideas, thoughts, information also exist. Not as material objects, of course. But they also exist as mental products. Where do they exist? “Outside” the universe?

Either way there is no sign that there is anything that is uncaused. To say the mind is uncaused seems to contradict science because all things work by physical laws. If the mind is not controlled by physical laws then it is unreasonable to say that it arises from the brain which is purely physical.

You forget the existence of emerging attributes. Chemistry cannot be fully reduced to mechanics, biology cannot be fully reduced to chemistry, etc… Just because the brain works according to the laws of nature, the mind does not have to. It usually does, but not always.